Yup. Fees estimation sites are never accurate as transaction volumes tends to spike randomly. In that site, you should be able to see the confidence level which is 50% 80% and 90% with 90% being the most expensive and a highest certainty to be confirmed within that timeframe.

No worries. I'm happy to answer them.

Correct.

Those who attained their rank before the introduction were given the amount of merits that is required to attain their rank.

The fees is determined by the transaction size, which is proportional to the number of inputs and the number of outputs that you have. It is unaffected by your total amount of Bitcoin sent.

Sites like (https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/) uses the same estimation methodology as Bitcoin Core and you tend to overpay for your transaction fees. If you're fine with a bit more room for error and paying lesser fees, see this site: https://bitcoindata.science/plot-your-transaction-in-mempool.html. Each block removes 1MB of transaction so you can roughly see where your transaction stands.

The fees that you've mentioned is calculated on a per byte basis. To get KB, use that number and multiply it by 1000.

Your transaction is ~10KB?

The fees mechanism in Bitcoin Core tends to be quite sticky downwards (ie. The lower mempool doesn't exactly reflect in the decrease in the cost for the transaction). It will thus have a more conservative estimate to ensure the chances of you getting a confirmation within X blocks. You should be fine with that. The amount of Bitcoins that you're sending in the transaction will not matter but the transaction size matters.

If you were to refer to the site referenced by LoyceV, you can scroll down and see that the total size of the transaction paying fees more than 12sat/byte is below 1MB.

Bitcoin Core uses kilobytes instead of bytes. You'd be looking to enter 0.00012BTC/KB or 12000 satoshis.

There isn't any fiat integration into Bitcoin Core. You'll have a confirmation to confirm the amount, TX fees and the address for it to be sent to. You can use a site like preev.com to convert it to USD.

You can. If you send a miner another transaction spending the same inputs, the miner can include the transaction into a block that they will mine. The transaction which gets confirmed depends on which miner includes which transactions first. That is how some pushtx website works, that is if they allow you to submit an alternative transaction.

The scenario is with a transaction without opt-in RBF. Without that flag, nodes will not relay your replacement transaction with a higher fee and thus suffers from poor propagation. If you don't have that set, you have two solutions:
1. Child Pay for Parent. By spending one of the outputs with a higher than proportionate fee, miners could include both your "parent" transaction as well as the "child" transactions and thus resulting in you getting a confirmation for both. This only works if you control any of the outputs for that transaction.
2. If the transaction doesn't get mined within a period of time, nodes could drop your transaction and you can create a new transaction with the new transaction having a better propagation. This is dependent on if your wallet   rebroadcasts your transaction or not.

Move your Wallet.dat to the Mac. Afterwards, go to /Library/Application Support/Bitcoin/ and you should see a file called wallet.dat there as well. Rename that wallet.dat to wallet1.dat and shift your wallet.dat into the folder. Start Bitcoin Core and you should be starting to synchronize.

Counterparty uses proof of burn which requires the user to send their Bitcoin to the provable burn address and they would get compensated in terms of the counterparty tokens. In essence, this makes it such that there is Bitcoin backing on the Counterparty tokens. For the second and third addresses, they're made for advertising with Bitcoin SV on the chain and they receive dust outputs fairly often.

Those are only the coins which are visibly burned. You can also burn Bitcoins by sending it using OP_return which ensures that the output doesn't bloat the Blockchain through adding unnecessary UTXOs and that it is provably burned. You can track it by parsing the Blockchain or use Bitcoin Core's commands to get the current amount of UTXOs. Note that it includes Bitcoins that are accidentally lost through errors by miners and such.

Well, you'd have to be fairly absent minded or just can't be bothered if you're unwilling to check the accuracy of the seed words and/or their positions after slotting in the letters.

This seems to be a fairly elegant solution if you want it to blend in with the surroundings. Given how it looks like a regular metal tube with no external etching, it's probably quite safe from theft or at least less noticeable with a metal sheet with words etched on it.

Pfizer vaccines are fairly hard to store with the extremely demanding storage conditions. It would be impossible for everyone on earth to have access to a vaccine anytime soon. I would be more concerned about those poorer countries which would likely be a hotbed for the virus. Pfizer vaccines requires 2 doses for it to be effective and there should be still a limited supply, I don't think SinoVac and others has reached the required threshold yet. Herd immunity would be hard enough to achieve, especially given all the fake news surrounding it (No. I'm not interested to discuss this with all the conspiracy theories, go find a doctor.)

I don't think COVID would be eradicated anytime soon, it would probably stick around like the Flu virus which makes it a seasonal virus. I do hope that the cases could go down and everyone could go back to their normal activities.

I imagine it would likely resort to a court order which would restrict their operations within that country and/or just them banning the exchange completely on the grounds that they do not comply with the country's KYC policies. Once the government does anything that could possibly disrupt their growth or profits, you bet they'll do anything to assist the government on whatever they need. You cannot trust them to not keep logs or keep it safe for that matter.

No, it's inaccurate.

The network is very unpredictable and no fee estimation website or software can accurately predict the spike in the number of transactions or transactions with higher fees. I would think that transactions with 1 sat/byte fees would typically take up to days or weeks to confirm.

Rebroadcasting the transaction ensures that it never drops out of the memory pool and that the miners will always be able to see and potentially mine your transaction. You can just open your client, right-click your transaction, View Transaction and see if the rebroadcast transaction is available. It happens when the server that you're connected to has already dropped your transaction. If not, go to the View Transaction> Export (at the bottom left corner) and press Copy to clipboard.

Here are some of the sites that allows you to submit your own transaction:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_broadcasting

Your sentence didn't make any sense and, pardon my assumption but I was also thinking that you were padding your word count. Whoever holds the testnet Bitcoins essentially holds nothing. The only value that it could be approximated to is the cost of mining a tBTC which is relatively negligible. If you're not looking to pay for anything, run regtest. It should suffice most use case.
There really isn't a point to do so.
You don't need the miners to cooperate. Testnet is not meant for production scenarios and there is no reason why you should be assuming testnet to be secure in the first place. The difficulty of the new testnet can be as low as they want. If they were to not cooperate, it'll just be another fork which no one uses.

Probably not. There's no point in doing that to peg Bitcoin prices to fiat on the forum.

You'd be better off getting a userscript for that which would serve the same purpose and you can customize it as well, probably more than if it was implemented on the page itself.

Shouldn't be. The coin control algorithm was actually changed and there were configurations to tell the wallet to choose all or only as needed. Current client does not explicitly give the user the choice to select them. It would make sense to use Coin Control to send what you need. However, do keep in mind that you should consolidate them by spending them all when the transaction fees are lower. It's typically lower on Sundays and you should be able to get it confirmed for a reasonable fee.

If you don't, the caveat is that it won't be efficient to send a transaction during the times where the network gets more congested.

No downside. It'll be the best if you could select the inputs which are able to cover both your Bitcoins sent as well as the fees incurred.

No one recommends KeepKey, even if it's codes are open source because it is pretty subpar (and I mean by a fairly big margin) as compared to the other popular HW wallets. Ledger IS open source, the secure element is not. Their NDA requires them to withhold certain firmware within the secure element.

I'm sick of the "open source codes" as a gauge for the trustworthiness of a product. Yes. Open source codes allows you to thoroughly review the hardware and the firmware of the wallet. Here's my question: Do you open it up to use an X-RAY to inspect the chips? Do you review the entire firmware?

If your answer to the above is no, you're better off going by the general consensus. Ledger has had it's fair share of missteps but is also audited and qualifies as a "decent" hardware wallet and is generally quite user friendly. Ledger is not the top of my list but you'll probably get your answer to why it's recommended going by the use case. It's stupid to denounce a product inferior solely based on the fact that due to a business decision, they have to keep certain parts of their proprietary codes private. I'm not a Ledger shill, do your own due diligence before purchasing any hardware wallets.

There are still some intrinsic differences with testnet and Bitcoin, they are not replicas of each other; the clients are configured to ignore standardness rules in testnet.

It's important to note that those people who are clever are not exactly mining with the difficulty that you see. Some blocks mined within the testnet actually has a difficulty of 1 instead of the difficulty as specified in the target. The difficulty is reset to 1 after a 20 minutes without any blocks. If you're able to do so, you can possibly mine quite a few testnet coins this way.

Wrong. Certain services exhibits unique behaviors, Binance often sends their funds to this address[1]. If you follow the path for the funds being transferred, you'll often discover that the address is always associated with the deposit in one way or another. Similarly, CoinBase and other exchanges also have similar behavior which would leave clues to what it is.

Of course, there is no way to determine with 100% certainty that an address is associated with a certain service. It'll merely be an educated guess.[2]


[1] https://twitter.com/binance/status/961666467325358081
[2] walletexplorer.com

Your storage space can be limited.

Assuming that the block hash being entered is valid. You will download the entire blockchain. If you don't want to wait, use Electrum.
No. Come on, the first reply clarified that already.

Bitcoin Core doesn't adopt BIP39 standards. You should be importing individual private keys instead.

It prunes the blocks as it goes. It wouldn't make a difference to the user if it gets deleted during or after the synchronizes and the former would benefit the user more. It's worth noting that pruning actually slows down the synchronizing process somewhat since it has to delete the block files as it goes to fit within the size.

The synchronization process actually gets way slower when it nears the current block height, the assumevalid makes the synchronization way faster at the start and slower at the end; you can actually speed up the end if you're in a hurry by specifying assumevalid= currentblockhash with some sacrifice in terms of security.